Niddah

R. Isaac b. Nahmani citing R. Eleazar  stated: The halachah is in agreement with the ruling which R. Jose b. Kipper cited in the name of R. Eliezer.  R. Zera observed: May I be worthy to go up  and to learn the tradition  from the Master's mouth. When he went up  he met R. Eleazar and asked him, 'Did you say: The halachah is in agreement with R. Jose b. Kipper?' — 'What I said was', the other replied, 'that it seemed to be reasonable. For since, throughout the chapter, "one day" was explicitly added  while in this case  it was not mentioned it may well be inferred that it seems reasonable [that the halachah is] in agreement with him'. MISHNAH. IF THE LOWER MARK  APPEARED BEFORE THE UPPER ONE  HAD YET MADE ITS APPEARANCE, SHE MAY PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE.  IF THE UPPER MARK  APPEARED BEFORE THE LOWER ONE  HAD MADE ITS APPEARANCE, THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE,  R. MEIR RULED, SHE MAY NEITHER PERFORM HALIZAH NOR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE; BUT THE SAGES RULED, SHE MAY EITHER PERFORM HALIZAH OR CONTRACT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE, BECAUSE THEY MAINTAIN: IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE LOWER MARK TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UPPER ONE HAD YET MADE ITS APPEARANCE, BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE UPPER MARK TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LOWER ONE HAD MADE ITS APPEARANCE. GEMARA. 'THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE'! But has it not in fact APPEARED?  — 'APPEARED', according to R. Meir;  'THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE' according to the Rabbis.  Why then was it not stated: 'If the upper mark appeared, R. Meir ruled, She may neither perform halizah nor contract levirate marriage but the Sages ruled, She may either perform halizah or contract levirate marriage'. and I would well have known that their reason is that it is impossible?  — If 'THOUGH THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE had not been stated, It might have been presumed that in most women the lower mark appears first and in that of a minority the upper mark appears first, and that R. Meir  is guided by his principle according to which he takes even a minority into consideration,  while the Rabbis  are guided by their principle according to which they do not take a minority into consideration;  and that this  applies only to a general case, but where an examination was held and no [lower mark] was found the Rabbis, it might have been assumed, agree with R. Meir  since the upper mark has appeared first, hence we were informed that this IS IMPOSSIBLE and that the lower mark  had undoubtedly appeared earlier but merely fell off. According to R. Meir  one may well justify the Scriptural text, Thy breasts  were fashioned, and thy hair  was grown,  but according to the Rabbis,  should not the order have been reversed?  — It is this that was meant: As soon as the 'breasts are fashioned' it is known that 'thy hair was grown'. According to R. Meir  one can well see the justification for the order of the Scriptural text, When they from Egypt bruised thy breasts  for the bosom  of thy youth.  but according to the Rabbis,  should not the order have been reversed?  — It is this that was meant: As soon as 'thy breasts' appeared it is known that thy youth  had appeared. And if you prefer I might reply: As to the meaning of  shede,  all the clause was written with regard to the breasts; and it is this that the Holy One, blessed be He, said in effect to Israel: